Leaderboard

I liked the episode to be honest, though it wasn't my favorite guest segment. But I think, honestly, Paul & Amy match my interest in Raiders. Like it's really fun, and I've always liked it, but what else is there really to say. Snakes' points are good, but they did bring them up, and I'm not sure how much more in depth they could or should have gone? I liked the focus on the fun, or the 'child-like' angle of the movie. Is the movie flawed, sure it is, but let's talk about how fun it is and why and how. That's why the movie is on the list. I do not think Paul & Amy were in any way encouraging of the underage relationship, nor praising Melania, and I feel safe in speaking for them on that.

It was the best day of my life when I found out she was gay and shitting on Paul Hollywood just sealed the deal on my love for her.

That's why I didn't bother re-watching Raiders or Lord of the Rings. I probably won't bother re-watching Star Wars either. I love them all dearly, but I've seen them soooo many times and I feel completely talked out about them.

Fair points, and I don't mean to be 100% down on the episode, and I do love the movie as a whole. I just felt like they glossed over too much, and didn't take a look at the film much outside of nostalgia. Raiders seemed to just get a much more superficial treatment than a lot of the other movies, including ET, in which they at least acknowledged they had a hard time viewing subjectively outside of how omnipresent it was during their childhoods (and mine).

I took Patsy's comment as sarcastic. Like, when LAW says her husband wouldn't approve, Patsy asks, "doesn't he know you drink?" [wink, wink, nudge, nudge] but that she was clearly referencing the strippers.

Same! I can't remember why I hadn't finished it (maybe just timing as it was on TV when I had to leave or something) but I also remember not being very impressed by the story. Especially in a modern viewing it got reaaalllll tiring just having to watch a married man try and not cheat on her.

I haven't listened yet, but I want to start off this thread where the Psycho thread ended, in which DannytheWall asked about the effectiveness of Hitchcock's black-and-white films vs his color films. I think that his B&W films ARE more impressive in a way, because Hitchcock was a master of light and shadow, and I never felt like his color films were able to show that off in the same virtuosic way. I was thinking, reading DannytheWall's points, that maybe it's just not possible to master light and shadow in a color film. That was until I rewatched Raiders of course, in which Spielberg's use of light and shadow is every bit as masterful as Hitchcock's. (To see this more clearly, check out Soderbergh's B&W edit of Raiders, and really marvel at how well it works.)

I saw this movie when I was five years old. I didn’t rewatch it before listening to the podcast. The only parts I remember are the scene at the end when he gets abandoned with no clothes on in the boat and when the lady passes out at the sight of the stripper’s wiener. Both scenes horrified me enough that they stayed with me all these years. The rest is such a blur that listening to the podcast was like hearing comedians make fun of a dream you barely remember having.

I have never seen it but it seems like it would be worth buying some groceries and settling in for a watch.

I've never actually seen The 7 Year Itch all the way through. I've somehow only managed to see the first half and snippets here and there. Besides the iconic dress scene I wasn't too impressed with what I saw (though I was slightly vindicated that Monroe's character also keeps clothes in the freezer during heat waves. ). Is it worth sitting down and seeing all the way through?

Maybe something by the fat boys

So then I guess the question becomes, is lack of depth a benefit to this movie? Or is it not as superficial as I think? What makes it stand out above other superficial, fun movies? Why is this on the list and not, like, Fast And The Furious or something? (That sounds like a silly question, and hate myself for writing it, but I think it's still my question.)

I wish I knew which HDTGM minisode had a musical theme that edited a bunch of out of context quotes about him loving nazis just to refute this.

I'm going to have to be a downer on this episode as well. Amy and Paul seemed to just gush over their fandom of the film through a nostalgic lens versus an actual criticism. I also loved, LOVED, the Indiana Jones movies growing up (though The Last Crusade was my favorite). But, there are some flaws that I really think, especially these days, Amy and Paul just glossed over: 1. Indy and Marion's backstory. Basically that their entire relationship is predicated on him taking advantage of her when she was underage. Amy and Paul just shrug that off as, "well, yeah, that's inappropriate, but he's so much sexier than Tom Selleck!" really bummed me out. Granted, it's given a total pass (even encouragement?) in the movie, and at the time, I think that deserves at least a little discussion, no? 2. Marion and the white dress. Amy mentions that Karen Allen questioned why her character had to wear that dress, and then Spielberg added that into the scene where she gets it as a gift. Her character was a hard-drinking, bar-owning, ass-kicking, pre-war pants-wearing bad ass. I, too, would have questioned that costume choice. Also, that she goes from being the bad ass to damsel in distress, and that Spielberg relies on the trope of violence against women as plot device (was that whole scene to get her in the dress?). I just don't like it. She could've been held captive and not had a rape-y guy force her into a dress. That was just unnecessary. Also, with the fandom rabbit hole they went down, Paul and Amy seemed to totally miss discussing what makes this an actual piece of cinema worthy of AFI other than that it was just "fun." They did mention the sunset, but as Bleary points out, the use of shadow and light, and the cinematography is beautiful. Not to mention the completely iconic opening action sequence. I would have loved to hear more of a discussion about that. Also the score. Also fighting the nazis. Just a lot of missed opportunities in this episode. I'm loathe to say it, but I'm disappointed.

After a bit of googling, I see Ruby (whom I love) called him a "peacocking manchild." Seems about right.

If you've never read it as Paul suggests, check out the Spielberg/Lucas/Kasdan brainstorming session for Raiders. It's super fascinating. Here's a link to an article that links to the pdf in the first paragraph. https://kottke.org/13/03/transcript-of-raiders-of-the-lost-ark-brainstorming-session

I noticed that too but it doesn't match up with the rest of the movie because I thought he was offering her punch with alcohol at the art party (maybe it was non-alcoholic) but then later for sure they are both having white wine with their Bojangles fried chicken. So if LAW being a hidden drinker was ever part of the story I think they dropped it and forgot to clean it up in the editing.

She really did, in a span of four years she was in the original live action Jungle King, Dumbo Drop, Larger Than Life, and George of the Jungle. Which is a pretty solid run.

And seems to play a very similar character.

I want to see HER movie about a meek abused housewife who spends a weekend in Florida visiting her sister, going to male strip clubs, banging (presumably) a stripper/ random she meets from said club and finding herself so she can go home and leave her worthless piece of shit husband and have a successful life. Also maybe trying to sleep with her brother in law? They were wayyyy to close at that art gallery. She can wear the perfume and dress he likes while serving him divorce papers! On the subject of creepy controlling husband's when they first go to Heaven doesn't LAW say her husband doesn't know she drinks / approves?

If this movie had any balls, it would have been Mr. Scarlet in the skiff with the gun.

aw, she makes anxiety seem fun.

Ruby was my favorite winner of the show and when it was announced that he would be following the show to Channel 4 she released her feelings about him on Twitter, and let's just say they were not favorable so ever since I've been salty towards him.

Yeah I think they wanted to establish Paul as the “Simon” of GBBO but he just comes across as a slightly disappointed dad. But the season with just him, where is he almost cast in the “good judge” role doesn’t quite work either (I may also miss Mary and Sue and Mel. And while the new hosts are good they don’t compare to the joy Sue and Mel had). Hi im EvRob and I will talk Batman, Star Wars, Harry Potter and Great British Bake off. Who wants to fight me.

This movie should be exciting! Cool pick!